Will Your Town Water Now Be at Higher Risk?

 by Brian T Lynch, MSW

HERE A LIST OF TOWNS DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADUSTMENT'S DECISION TO ALLOW A CHEMICAL COMPANY TO HOUSE A MANUFACTURING PLANT RIGHT BESIDE THE BLACK RIVER AND THE MUA'S ALAMATONG WELL FIELD WHERE THESE TOWNS GET DRINKING WATER.

What follows is my letter to Darren Carney, Administrator of the Randolph Township Planning and Zoning Board. I thought the information provided would be sufficient to count as new information not provided by the applicants, or the ECOS company representative did not provide a full account of the chemicals it would be shipping for storage and use at their intended manufacturing plant at the Morris Business Campus. My request for a 20 day municipal reconsideration, based on new information and the significant risks by the chemicals to be used that were not stated by ECOS, was denied. Here below it is the letter I sent and the response I received with an attachment. Is this sufficient? Is it comprehensive enough and is it enforcable.  

Dear Mr. Carney,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of the Board’s decision to allow ECOS to build a bottling/manufacturing plant within the Morris Business Campus on Sussex Turnpike. I am a resident of neighboring Mine Hill.  My standing for making this request is that Mine Hill’s public drinking water comes from the Alamatong Well Field located adjacent to this property. My rationale for making this request is that representatives for the ECOS company appear to have misrepresented the safety and environmental risks associated with the manufacture of its laundry detergent during the public hearing held in September of this year.

The following is an evaluation of the claims made to the Randolph Township Board of Adjustment by representatives of the ECOS chemical company regarding the safety of the chemicals they use in manufacturing their most popular laundry detergent. It was claimed that the companies “largest selling product is a laundry detergent” that is “really biodegradable and free from synthetic dye and other harmful substances.” These clams were recently memorialized in the release of the Board’s minutes and used in justifying a zoning variance allowing the company to rent a large warehouse on the Morris Business Campus. As you can see below, the claims made, which had a bearing on the approval by the Board, appear to be materially false.  Here is a screen shot of the relevant minutes:

  

According to the company’s website, the “Flagship Product” is ECOS Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent (with enzymes). It is consistently identified as their top product, recognized for being plant-powered and effective in all water temperatures. The most popular versions include the Lavender scent and the Free & Clear (scent-free) formula. What follows is a screenshot from their website of the chemical compounds used to make their laundry detergent.

 Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent with Enzymes – Free & Clear   

Here is a screenshot of the chemical ingredients in ECOS’s top selling product, as referenced in the Board’s minutes. 

These are the chemicals that will be delivered to the facility in large quantities and stored for use in manufacturing laundry detergent. For each of these ingredients, the Safety Data Sheets (SDS) were reviewed and safety warnings related to public health or the environment were copied and pasted (in part) to the table below. The highest NFPA* category is listed on the table along with a URL link to the SDS reviewed. Note that every chemical compound with a NFPA category of #2 or above is specifically prohibited from this warehouse location by an existing zoning ordinance*. None of this information is referenced in the minutes from the public hearing. (Click on image to open it)

 

Seven of thirteen listed ingredients have NFPA numbers of #2 or higher. Three products are specifically hazardous to aquatic environments. The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for one chemical, Protease, states that it is “acutely toxic (oral) and very toxic to aquatic life. It carries the highest biohazard category of #4. The SDS warning on a fourth chemical states that it will affect PH of water in the environment and harm aquatic organisms if released in quantity. The SDS on six other chemicals warn against release into the environment. These finding, based on the actual laundry detergent ingredients to be manufactured at this location can not be summarized by saying the product is free from “other harmful substances.” 

 

Given these grave findings, and the mischaracterization of the product by a company representative, action should be taken to reopen a more comprehensive analysis of the plan to allow ECOS to locate a plant within this highly fragile environment. 

If my information is materially wrong, please provide me with corrected information. Thank you for your consideration. 

Brian Lynch

37 Randall Avenue

Mine Hill, New Jersey 07803

* NFPA is the National Fire Protection Association, as you know. (see below).

 

RESPONSE

Darren Carney	Tue, Feb 3, 2:48 PM (2 days ago)
to me, Randolph

Mr. Lynch,

 

The Board has concluded the hearing on the application and can not reopen the case.  As a condition of approval, the tenant is required to provide the attached assessment of its operations before occupying the location.  If the information in the assessment is not consistent with the stipulations and representations made during the public hearing, the tenant will be required to obtain an amended approval from the Board.

 

Darren Carney

Planning Administrator

ATTACHMENT 

15-33.5. Special performance standards.

All uses and development applications in the I-2 District shall provide an assessment of the impact on the

groundwater with a particular emphasis concerning the potential affect on existing and proposed public and

private water supply wells. At a minimum, the assessment shall contain the following:

A. Description of proposed use or activity; product produced or stored, and Standard Industrial Code

(S.I.C.), if applicable.

B. A complete list of the types and volumes of all hazardous materials (including fuels) used, stored,

processed, handled or disposed, other than those volumes and types associated with normal

household use.

C. Documentation of floor drain locations, paved area drainage paths, overflow areas, septic fields and

other routes where contaminants under usual and emergency situations have an opportunity to enter

the groundwater of surface waters.

D. Description of the types of wastes generated and method of disposal, including solid wastes, hazardous

wastes, sewage and nonsewage wastewater discharges.

E. Location of all public and private potable water supply wells within the property and within 2,000 feet

of the property line which have the potential for contamination from the subject property.

F. Description of the risks associated with the use, handling and/or disposal of any hazardous wastes.

G. Description of plans to detect and control hazardous material leaks and spills and plans for inspections

and monitoring, emergency notification and emergency containment and clean-up procedures.

H. Description of best available technologies to safely store and handle any hazardous wastes and to

detect releases of any hazardous materials.

I. Assessment of compliance with the best management practices for groundwater quality protection.

(Ord. No. 30-99, § 2, 7-6-99)